User talk:AI RPer

Welcome!

Hello, AI RPer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Sro23 (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: Your message

The edit in question was not concerned with changing national varieties of English. The school in question is in Ghana (a former British colony) where the UK term "Secondary" is used far more than the US term "Senior High"; it was not, though, a matter of US En -v- UK En.

The school has been known by both names (often simultaneously!) e.g. the Wiki article on the school used both terms throughout. As part of my edit of the school's article, I made the use of the name consistent through the article (because Wiki likes consistency), which involved choosing to use one name or the other. I opted to use the school's official name. The Ghanaian Government's Ministry of Education calls the school Kumassi Anglican Secondary School on its 2016 web page; the sign on the front gate reads "Kumassi Anglican Secondary School"; it is widely known as KASS (for Kumassi Anglican Secondary School) and, indeed, the results website of the Ghana National Science and Maths Quiz refers to it as KASS. In changing the name on the quiz article, I was

1. extending the consistency
2. ensuring that the link connected to the correct place and
3. correcting the initial error in the quiz article.

I did not change the proper noun from the official name; I changed it to the official name! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeekeeyMisha (talk • contribs) 22:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for my star! I shall treasure it for ever. (Of course, you may want to withdraw it now - the link on the Ghana National quiz page probably doesn't link to the school page I edited any more and clicking it will make the internet implode or something...) Misha, an interested observer of this and that 00:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeekeeyMisha (talk • contribs)

October 2016

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates (such as welcome templates and user warnings) on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm AI RPer. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to User:AI RPer have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. -- AI RPer (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Shirish Kunder

Looks like you have selectively edited, and not followed wiki rules of objectivity,2602:30A:C7D7:E590:51A2:2227:5921:EBBC (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

 Question: Could you please explain how the stuff in the section, such as all the refs there, are unreliable, and how using vague terms instead of proper nouns is a good idea? Wikipedia discourages libelous/defamatory content in biographies of living persons, but I think criminal records are okay as long as it is written from a neutral perspective and the sources are verifiable and reliable. There is also no such thing as objectivity. -- AI RPer (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

PS. I tried to search for objectivity policies and guidelines and I couldn't find any of them. I do know that there is no such thing as objectivity. -- AI RPer (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

York Castle

Sorry for reverting back to the vandal's version - I jumped the gun there, since you had dealt with it fine. GAB^gab 16:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I know. -- AI RPer (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Signature

It looks as if your customised signature is a violation of WP:SIGLEN, so please correct it. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Does it keep showing this; API is only for examples of style and formatting. Do not use it in actual articles., instead of links to my user pages? Because I used the {mxtn|templates} so it could have that computery font look, either it has something to do with the way our computers work or because I use Vector and you use a style other than Vector, or something else. Because when I use my signature, it always looks like this; AI RPer (talk), but in monospace font. (like the font you see when source editing), maybe your thing is different? I might consider trying a different way to get that font just in case. Usually the policy you link to is against long signatures, but not short signatures. -- AI RPer (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Your signature is well over 600 bytes, instead of the 255 specified maximum, and spreads over about 5 lines in the edit window, as follows:

'''[[User:AI RPer|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:0}}|{{FormattingError|[[:{{#invoke:TEMPLATENAME|main}}]] is only for examples of style and formatting. Do not use it in actual articles.}}|<span class="neutral-example-mono" style="font-family:monospace,Courier;" {{#if:|title="{{{title}}}"}}>AI RPer</span>}}]]''' (''[[User talk:AI RPer|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:0}}|{{FormattingError|[[:{{#invoke:TEMPLATENAME|main}}]] is only for examples of style and formatting. Do not use it in actual articles.}}|<span class="neutral-example-mono" style="font-family:monospace,Courier;" {{#if:|title="{{{title}}}"}}>talk</span>}}]]'') 12:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC).

--David Biddulph (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed my signature from {mxtn|Example} to {font|Example|font=Consolas}. Hope that fixes the problem. I have noticed that my signature was ridiculously long in the source editor. -- AI RPer (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Better than it was, but still 427 bytes, rather than 255 max as given at WP:SIGLEN. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Apparently when I sign my posts, my signature becomes all this;

<span style="font-family:{{#if: Consolas |Consolas|sans-serif}};font-size:{{#if: |{{{size}}}|100%}};color:{{#if: |{{{color}}}|black}};background-color:{{#if: |{{{bgcolor}}}|transparent}};{{#if: |title:{{{title}}}|}};{{#if: |{{{css}}}|}}">{{#if: '''[[User:AI RPer|AI RPer]]''' (''[[User talk:AI RPer|talk]]'') |'''[[User:AI RPer|AI RPer]]''' (''[[User talk:AI RPer|talk]]'')|{{{text}}}}}</span>

When I only typed this into the signature box at Preferences;

{{font|[[User:AI RPer|AI RPer]] ([[User talk:AI RPer|talk]])|font="Consolas"}}

And now I'm wondering how to fix it so it doesn't expand like that. -- AI RPer (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Do not

Don't spam my talk page and user page with your idiotic false accusations again. If you are here to build an encyclopaedia, build it. If you are here to pester people, find someone else to pester. 222.29.61.49 (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, AI RPer. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Joseph2302 18:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

AI RPer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

If I was Turkeybutt JC, I would focus on making articles more NPOV, and I wouldn't be making personal attacks against other accounts that I owned, and I would be whining all the time on talk pages about how other editors are not letting me make Wikipedia more neutral. I have been fighting a bunch of vandals, and reverting a bunch of vandals, most of my contributions involved fighting vandalism. But just because User A gets involved in a discussion about whether User X could be a sock puppet of User Y or not doesn't mean that User A is a sockpuppet of User Y.

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia where we can collaborate and help make Wikipedia better, but we as contributors should not assume that other editors are sockpuppets of specific sanctioned users, until we have collected enough evidence to verify that, and a CheckUser confirming it with no clear evidence other than check their contributions for evidence is not specific enough about how my editing patterns are similar to Turkeybutt JC's editing patterns.

I understand that Turkeybutt JC was a very disruptive editor who really did deserve that block as per consensus. But based on the actions of their actual socks, they appear to be apologizing in a sincere manner and really begging hard for your forgiveness and amnesty, and they have been denied forgiveness multiple times. It appears you have a strong hatred against them and would revert every single edit they make, as a sockophobe would do.

And if anyone deletes this request and blocks me from my talk page, that would constitute as biting a newcomer since I was only on for 11 days. -- AI RPer (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=If I was Turkeybutt JC, I would focus on making articles more NPOV, and I wouldn't be making personal attacks against other accounts that I owned, and I would be whining all the time on talk pages about how other editors are not letting me ''make Wikipedia more neutral''. I have been fighting a bunch of vandals, and reverting a bunch of vandals, most of my contributions involved fighting vandalism. But just because User A gets involved in a discussion about whether User X could be a sock puppet of User Y or not doesn't mean that User A is a sockpuppet of User Y. :Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia where we can collaborate and help make Wikipedia better, [[WP:DBQ|but we as contributors should not assume that other editors are sockpuppets of specific sanctioned users]], until we have collected enough evidence to verify that, and a CheckUser confirming it with no clear evidence other than ''check their contributions for evidence'' is not specific enough about how my editing patterns are similar to Turkeybutt JC's editing patterns. I understand that Turkeybutt JC was a very disruptive editor who really did deserve that block as per consensus. But based on the actions of their actual socks, they appear to be apologizing in a sincere manner and really begging hard for your forgiveness and amnesty, and they have been denied forgiveness multiple times. It appears you have a strong hatred against them and would revert every single edit they make, as a [[WP:Sockophobia|sockophobe]] would do. :And if anyone deletes this request and blocks me from my talk page, that would constitute as [[WP:DNB|biting a newcomer]] since I was only on for 11 days. -- <span style="font-family:Consolas;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;;">'''[[User:AI RPer|AI RPer]]''' (''[[User talk:AI RPer|talk]]'')</span> 22:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=If I was Turkeybutt JC, I would focus on making articles more NPOV, and I wouldn't be making personal attacks against other accounts that I owned, and I would be whining all the time on talk pages about how other editors are not letting me ''make Wikipedia more neutral''. I have been fighting a bunch of vandals, and reverting a bunch of vandals, most of my contributions involved fighting vandalism. But just because User A gets involved in a discussion about whether User X could be a sock puppet of User Y or not doesn't mean that User A is a sockpuppet of User Y. :Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia where we can collaborate and help make Wikipedia better, [[WP:DBQ|but we as contributors should not assume that other editors are sockpuppets of specific sanctioned users]], until we have collected enough evidence to verify that, and a CheckUser confirming it with no clear evidence other than ''check their contributions for evidence'' is not specific enough about how my editing patterns are similar to Turkeybutt JC's editing patterns. I understand that Turkeybutt JC was a very disruptive editor who really did deserve that block as per consensus. But based on the actions of their actual socks, they appear to be apologizing in a sincere manner and really begging hard for your forgiveness and amnesty, and they have been denied forgiveness multiple times. It appears you have a strong hatred against them and would revert every single edit they make, as a [[WP:Sockophobia|sockophobe]] would do. :And if anyone deletes this request and blocks me from my talk page, that would constitute as [[WP:DNB|biting a newcomer]] since I was only on for 11 days. -- <span style="font-family:Consolas;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;;">'''[[User:AI RPer|AI RPer]]''' (''[[User talk:AI RPer|talk]]'')</span> 22:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=If I was Turkeybutt JC, I would focus on making articles more NPOV, and I wouldn't be making personal attacks against other accounts that I owned, and I would be whining all the time on talk pages about how other editors are not letting me ''make Wikipedia more neutral''. I have been fighting a bunch of vandals, and reverting a bunch of vandals, most of my contributions involved fighting vandalism. But just because User A gets involved in a discussion about whether User X could be a sock puppet of User Y or not doesn't mean that User A is a sockpuppet of User Y. :Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia where we can collaborate and help make Wikipedia better, [[WP:DBQ|but we as contributors should not assume that other editors are sockpuppets of specific sanctioned users]], until we have collected enough evidence to verify that, and a CheckUser confirming it with no clear evidence other than ''check their contributions for evidence'' is not specific enough about how my editing patterns are similar to Turkeybutt JC's editing patterns. I understand that Turkeybutt JC was a very disruptive editor who really did deserve that block as per consensus. But based on the actions of their actual socks, they appear to be apologizing in a sincere manner and really begging hard for your forgiveness and amnesty, and they have been denied forgiveness multiple times. It appears you have a strong hatred against them and would revert every single edit they make, as a [[WP:Sockophobia|sockophobe]] would do. :And if anyone deletes this request and blocks me from my talk page, that would constitute as [[WP:DNB|biting a newcomer]] since I was only on for 11 days. -- <span style="font-family:Consolas;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;;">'''[[User:AI RPer|AI RPer]]''' (''[[User talk:AI RPer|talk]]'')</span> 22:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}